The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

[BadFish]

Saying it's possible, is not saying it is absolutely what happened. If you accept that "all" are, that means "this one definitely is", which nobody is saying. It may be some people's view, but nobody is claiming to know it, or be able to prove it. It is suggested as possible.

You don't think it is possible?

You maybe be only suggesting it is possible (you are doing a lot of arguing for something which your believe is "possible") it would appear that [MENTION=2850]brunswick[/MENTION] is taking it further than that and suggesting it is what happened.

I do concede that it is possible but many other theories are possible.

While we are asking direct questions

Do you think that this mind controlled by the government theory is the more likely?

 

[dingodan]

This was in 1995, we need to "brainwash" people about guns.



An honest person would try to convince adults using facts, not children using propaganda and conditioning.

And, if you are wondering, this man is now the Attorney General of the United States.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

What turned out as a statement of the obvious has turned into statements of the absurd.

If the CIA was that organised, I'd expect them to hire some brasses to get some of the mentalists on this thread laid. God knows they need it.

f***ing Wierdos.

 

[dingodan]

You maybe be only suggesting it is possible (you are doing a lot of arguing for something which your believe is "possible") it would appear that [MENTION=2850]brunswick[/MENTION] is taking it further than that and suggesting it is what happened.

I do concede that it is possible but many other theories are possible.

While we are asking direct questions

Do you think that this mind controlled by the government theory is the more likely?

I don't know, I only interjected in the discussion because the possibility was seemingly being so absolutely ruled out.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=1313]BadFish[/MENTION] Have you heard of Fast and Furious?

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listen to Holder in the above post, and then watch this video and tell me what you think is going on here.

 

[BadFish]

No I haven't. I am at work now and don't have time to look into it.

If you have any other links I will have a look when i have some time.

 

[beorhthelm]

[MENTION=1313]BadFish[/MENTION] Have you heard of Fast and Furious?

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

good case for stricter gun control dont you think, so that people cant easily buy guns in the US and take them to Mexico for the drug cartels?

 

[Bold Seagull]

read the thread again, and you will see i state very clearly it is my free will opinion (e.g belief) from my perspective. i have even said my theory cannot be proved, but more weight can go into it when the gun laws change.

in this i find no delusion, i have researched mind control, spoke to a world expert at length on it, and this (for me), has many hall marks of it.

[MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] the documentary i posted above goes more into this "lone nut" meme. for me, it just doesn't add up, someone can be unstable and a little p'd off at the world sometimes, but to go and shoot up 70 odd people.....with no motive or message or plea. have you looked at the pictures of him? he's not present, he is drugged or under mind control.

most mentally damaged people in a really bad violent state, would go for someone they knew, irratically too, but cold, calculated, calm attacks on strangers is much of the time (in my view) via mind control.

My point wasn't to say you're deluded, my point was to suggest that your tone, or presentation of your posts suggests that to the reader. In a way, I think you invite some of the ridicule when actually you've got more pertinent points to make.

I've also got Naomi Klein's No Logo, and had it when it first came out (back in 2000 I think), and the philosophy of semiotics is one I've often had a keen interest in, whether through the novels of Umberto Eco, back to the text's of Plato such as 'The Republic', or the French semiologists Saussure and Barthes (not the keeper!!). For example, for an architect, buildings by their very nature are semiotic, as we each carry a subconscious version or memory of a building in our mind, whether a home, library, school, whatever. Take a child's drawing of a house, a house rarely if ever looks like this, however this is their semiotic relationship with what a house is, and basically has meant that for 100's of years our houses are what they are, and the traditional house model is still the most popular rather than more contemporary solutions.

Anyway,I digress, I've not until now seen the link of analysing signs at an event, and making abstract conclusions that these signs give clues to some other more complex motivation behind an action. I'd always seen semiology as more of a base understanding of how we as salient beings can communicate both through linguistics, and metaphor.

 

[brunswick]

My point wasn't to say you're deluded, my point was to suggest that your tone, or presentation of your posts suggests that to the reader. In a way, I think you invite some of the ridicule when actually you've got more pertinent points to make.

I've also got Naomi Klein's No Logo, and had it when it first came out (back in 2000 I think), and the philosophy of semiotics is one I've often had a keen interest in, whether through the novels of Umberto Eco, back to the text's of Plato such as 'The Republic', or the French semiologists Saussure and Barthes (not the keeper!!). For example, for an architect, buildings by their very nature are semiotic, as we each carry a subconscious version or memory of a building in our mind, whether a home, library, school, whatever. Take a child's drawing of a house, a house rarely if ever looks like this, however this is their semiotic relationship with what a house is, and basically has meant that for 100's of years our houses are what they are, and the traditional house model is still the most popular rather than more contemporary solutions.

Anyway,I digress, I've not until now seen the link of analysing signs at an event, and making abstract conclusions that these signs give clues to some other more complex motivation behind an action. I'd always seen semiology as more of a base understanding of how we as salient beings can communicate both through linguistics, and metaphor.

good post. thanks.

there are some amazing books on symbolism within masonry and rosacrucianism. i see relevant symbols leading up to an event as either a) planted there to gain energy / subconsious focus (however one wishes to word it, or b) there is a syncronicity layer within manifest reality itself (synchromysticism), as in symbols will appear in our 'reality' naturally, leading up to an event - that the symbols' symbolise.

it is pretty much impossible to prove a or b, but i don't believe in conicidences, hence i am with a or b.

 

[brunswick]

[MENTION=2850]brunswick[/MENTION] though (sorry fella) is slap bang in the middle of illogical bonkers conspiracy theories.

where do you get the plural from? in this thread i stated "i believe this has the hallmarks" of mind control, and presented the dots that got me to this subjective opinion. how is this illogical or bonkers? shame, as respected so many of your posts.

here are more dots to show how i got to my opinion,

Obama has come out and said that weapons belong "in wars but not on our streets."

and...

Aurora Massacre: What Does the Location of the Gas Mask Tell Us? What About Security Cameras? Are They Related? American Everyman

and now we know he had a pyschiatrist.....mkultra handlers are nearly always pyschiatrists.

Colorado suspect described massacre in notebook, reports say - latimes.com

 

[Seagull58]

Right. So in fact you hold a personal prejudice against me. You think I am a "fantasist" and a "madman". Well that's one way to dismiss what I say out of hand. Perhaps this is why you are unable to read my posts and respond to what they actually say. Because you have decided before I say a word, that you disagree with me.

Great quote, considering this conversation has nothing to do with the concept of militia, nice one again.

Always comes back to trying to insult or discredit me, rather than dealing with the subject matter.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is my outrageous "fantastical" and "madman" viewpoint. And whether you like it or not, it is a viewpoint I came to after examining the facts.

Try it.

Countries with strict gun laws have much less gun crime. Irrefutable fact.The reason that introducing stricter gun laws does not necessarily reduce the level of gun crime in the short, or even medium, term is primarily due to the inability to fully enforce the gun laws. It is pretty well proven by statistics, even allowing for other factors that influence the stats, that the more guns in circulation in the population the more gun crime that occurs.

 

[Seagull58]

It's not a result of gun laws here, or a lack of them in the U.S.

It is a result of the number of guns in circulation, which is impacted by the gun laws and the extent of compliance with/enforcement of the gun laws.

 

[pastafarian]

ill go for before 25th december 2012 the new law will be passed, and will be being prepared to implement....

thats a cool story

but how many decades will it take The New World Order to actually implement and disarm the American people?

 

[BadFish]

where do you get the plural from? in this thread i stated "i believe this has the hallmarks" of mind control, and presented the dots that got me to this subjective opinion. how is this illogical or bonkers? shame, as respected so many of your posts.

here are more dots to show how i got to my opinion,

Obama has come out and said that weapons belong "in wars but not on our streets."

and...

Aurora Massacre: What Does the Location of the Gas Mask Tell Us? What About Security Cameras? Are They Related? American Everyman

and now we know he had a pyschiatrist.....mkultra handlers are nearly always pyschiatrists.

Colorado suspect described massacre in notebook, reports say - latimes.com

Sorry [MENTION=2850]brunswick[/MENTION] i shouldn't have resorted to name calling.

 

[brunswick]

Sorry [MENTION=2850]brunswick[/MENTION] i shouldn't have resorted to name calling.

no problem.....its a dicey subject and its a bit of a binfest in here ;-)

 

[brunswick]

thats a cool story

but how many decades will it take The New World Order to actually implement and disarm the American people?

the law will mean less guns, and that is what they want.....just like the knife amnesty in uk after major press about "stabbings" - lots of knifes where handed in, but not all.

its the message that goes out that holds the power in the new law - people tend to police people....."oh look redneck ned has a gun, they are against the law, hicky ricky handed his in last week, should we tell the police" type thing occurs.

 

[pastafarian]

the law will mean less guns, and that is what they want.....just like the knife amnesty in uk after major press about "stabbings" - lots of knifes where handed in, but not all.

its the message that goes out that holds the power in the new law - people tend to police people....."oh look redneck ned has a gun, they are against the law, hicky ricky handed his in last week, should we tell the police" type thing occurs.

you seem to under the misinformed assumption most gun owners are hicks or rednecks.

You are wildly grabbing at straws here.

There are millions of legally acquired unregistered firearms in the US. I keep two myself over there, depending on what state you are in just walk into a gun fair hand over your dollars and its no checks,questions or paperwork.
Considering nearly all are held on private property, your thesis that somehow the American people are going to be disarmed in some significant number in the near future to facilitate the start of the New World Order takeover is pure hogwash and genuinely naïve.

And thanks for not coming close to answering my original question regarding timeline.

 

[brunswick]

you seem to under the misinformed assumption most gun owners are hicks or rednecks.

You are wildly grabbing at straws here.

There are millions of legally acquired unregistered firearms in the US. I keep two myself over there, depending on what state you are in just walk into a gun fair hand over your dollars and its no checks,questions or paperwork.
Considering nearly all are held on private property, your thesis that somehow the American people are going to be disarmed in some significant number in the near future to facilitate the start of the New World Order takeover is pure hogwash and genuinely naïve.

And thanks for not coming close to answering my original question regarding timeline.

the rednecks, hicky sentence was an attempt to bring humor to this thread...lost on you obviously. of course i know what sort of ppl have guns in the usa.

i have answered your question, the law before xmas, and the actual disarming of everyone is open ended as the reasons i gave. it is a consciousness shift they are looking for = "no one should have a gun, look what happened in denver, shall we tell on our mates." actually going door to door and searching every draw and cabinet is impossible.

 

[dingodan]

Countries with strict gun laws have much less gun crime. Irrefutable fact.The reason that introducing stricter gun laws does not necessarily reduce the level of gun crime in the short, or even medium, term is primarily due to the inability to fully enforce the gun laws. It is pretty well proven by statistics, even allowing for other factors that influence the stats, that the more guns in circulation in the population the more gun crime that occurs.

I love all of your confident assertions they are great.

Source or GTFO.

 

[dingodan]

good case for stricter gun control dont you think, so that people cant easily buy guns in the US and take them to Mexico for the drug cartels?

Hook, line and sinker...